> If a device can be accessed by multiple machines concurrently, it
> should not be in driverfs.
On that argument, we'll eliminate almost all Fibre Channel devices!
I think the qualification for appearing in driverfs is actually possessing a
driver. Therefore, we accept FC and iSCSI. Things which appear as
FileSystems are debatable, but not anything which has a real device driver.
> We need a device tree to do PM. If driverfs's PM capabilities are hurt
> because it doesn't stay true to that, then the featureitis has gone
> too far.
Perhaps it's more a question of whether power management belongs as an every
unit item in driverfs. As you say, we get problems where the device is shared
between multiple computers.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 30 2002 - 22:00:08 EST